Legal Subject: Statute

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Archers and Others v. Magistrates of Edinburg	1797	Statute, Fraud, Act of Parliament, Sequestration, Trust, Tax	James and Andrew Archers, John Hardy, and William Younger, brewers operating within the precincts of Holyroodhouse, pursued the magistrates of Edinburgh and Alexander Thomson to contest the legality of a two-penny duty imposed on ale brewed and consumed in the Abbey, maintaining that the magistrates lacked authority to levy the tax within that jurisdiction. The brewers claimed total exemption from the duty, which the chargers subsequently challenged as legally unsound and unjust.
Brenton v. Liddell	1796	Justices of Peace, Apprentice, Statute, Suspension, Expenses, Service	Captain Brenton sought to justify his detention of the apprentice John Donaldson against suspender Liddell, maintaining that Liddell had failed to comply with statutory conditions for reclaiming the boy. Liddell responded that Donaldson had not been lawfully enrolled under the 1795 act, as no written notification of disqualification had been delivered prior to the apprentice’s entry on board ship. The dispute turned on the validity of the enrollment and the statutory prerequisites for reclaiming an apprentice.
Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al	1794	Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension
Creditors of John Horn	1791	Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute	George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie v. His Children	1792	Creditor, Adjudication, Statute, Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor	The creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie, as pursuers, contended against his children, as defenders, that adjudications made without intimation were void and null, as set forth in the Information of John Peter du Rouvray and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith	1795	Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction	Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart.
Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da…	1835	Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession	The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action.
Fraser, Reid and Sons v. Lancaster and Jamieson	1793	Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Citation, Horning, Statute	Fraser, Reid and Sons claimed preferential rights to goods held in Coats’s custody, asserting priority based on protested bills for specific cargoes and challenging arrestments later laid by Lancaster and Jamieson. The defenders lodged duplies disputing the validity of the arrestments and the question of preference, responding to the pursuers’ replies.
Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh	1792	Tax, Debt, Corporation, Aliment, Interlocutor, Statute	Alexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions.
Incorporated trades of Aberdeen v. The Magistrates, Council, & Guildry of Aberdeen	1793	Decreet-Arbitral, Foreign Trade, Trade, Interlocutor, Statute, Monopoly
Incorporation of Goldsmiths v. Cunningham, White, Marshall and Sons	1801	Statute, Privilege, Corporation, Disuse	The Incorporation of Goldsmiths brought a claim against jewelers and metal workers who were not part of their incorporation for selling jewelry and metal works. The Incorporation of Goldsmiths argued that Parliament had conferred exclusive privileges to the incorporated goldsmiths to search for, manufacture, and sell metal works, and that the defendants had been doing the same illegally since they were not properly incorporated. The non-incorporated defendants argued that after a certain practice has been maintained for a substantial time, i.e. their selling metal works despite their non-incorporated status, the statute conferring the privileges falls into disuse and becomes moot.
John Kelly v. John Smith	1780	Statute	John Kelly, huntsman to Major Blair of Blair, brought a complaint against John Smith for hunting without the proper qualification. Smith argued that he satisfied the only statutory qualification that was currently in effect. The dispute raised a question of first impression as to the correct interpretation of certain statutes.
Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland v. Andrew-Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines at Edinburgh	1792	Register, Teinds, Prescription, Sasine, Reversion, Statute	Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland, sued Andrew Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines, to recover authority over the sasine registers. Stuart, together with John Davidson and Andrew Steele, had claimed that a Crown commission conferred upon them lawful authority over the general Register of Seisins and custody of the particular register books. Campbell challenged the validity of that commission and asserted his own statutory authority under the 1617 Act, demanding surrender of the unmarked books.
Martin and Ker v. Robertsons	1792	Debt, Prescription, Statute, Statute of limitations, Creditor, Aliment	Martin and Ker pursued a debt claim against Robert Robertson, a minor, and his tutors, who defended by asserting that prescription barred the action under the 1579 statute, requiring the creditors to prove the debt and its unpaid status beyond three years. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen	1791	Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Heritor, Aliment, Statute	The Reverend Mr M'Culloch pursued William Allan, schoolmaster of Bothwell, regarding a Synod sentence that had found Allan unqualified for his office. Allan petitioned the Court to remit the sentence, and M'Culloch responded with information arguing that sentences of Presbyteries on schoolmasters were subject to review by superior ecclesiastical courts.
Mitchell v. Douglas and Baillie 1 of 2	1796	Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Valuation, Heritor, Statute	Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elisabeth Baillie of Lamington, defenders, petitioned the Court to alter its 1793 interlocutor modifying the minister's stipend in victual. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mures, et al v. Hannay, et al.	1793	Agent, Debt, Sale, Interlocutor, Creditor, Statute	Sir Samuel Hannay and his co-defenders petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, requesting either that the Court fix a time and place for creditors to elect a common agent for the sale and ranking or that it appoint Archibald Swinton or another person to that office. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ross v. Forbes, Hunter, and Company	1792	Agent, Interlocutor, Insurance, Creditor, Debt, Statute	Donald Ross petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in an action against Forbes, Hunter, and Company regarding liability for damages. The defenders answered petitions by Catharine Ross and Alexander Mackenzie by arguing that they were not liable because the broker and underwriters were directly responsible. The litigation thus turned on whether the defenders could avoid liability by attributing responsibility to these third parties.
Sir Alexander Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule	1794	Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter
Sutherland v. Caledonian Society of Edinburgh	1797	Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Libel, Statute, Expenses	John Sutherland, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Glenlee dismissing his action against the Caledonian Society of Edinburgh, the defender, for wrongful expulsion and denial of burial money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Procurator-Fiscal of the Town of Stirling v. John Gillies and Others	1793	Salmon Fishing, Jurisdiction, Act of Parliament, Tack, Trespass, Statute
The Right Honourable Lord Elibank and Others v. Patrick Murray	1832	Land, Clause, Statute	Lord Elibank and the Commissioners pursued Patrick Murray of Simprim to determine whether a 1776 entail deed prohibited Murray from selling the entailed lands. Murray answered, responding to the argument that the deed restricted his right to alienate the property. The Complainers subsequently submitted their case asserting that Murray was barred from alienating the lands under the terms of the settlement.
Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads v. Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick	1793	Trustees, Thirlage, Mala Fides, Statute, Interdict, Act of Parliament	The Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads defended the placement of a toll-bar on the Eyemouth road against the Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick, who sought suspension of the tolls under a 1793 turnpike act. The Corporation argued that the trustees had violated the statute by situating the gate closer to Eyemouth than to Berwick, thereby creating unequal distances prohibited by the act. The Trustees maintained that the gate was properly positioned as near as may be to the required distance from Berwick and that the Corporation's bill of suspension lacked legal foundation.